Why are children in 1841 UK census named "Frageon"

Question

John Sergeant Nottingham's children in 1841 census are listed with surname "Frageon" - what does that mean? They were christened "Nottingham" and their mother is Dinah Nottingham. These are the correct children for the family in other respects.

John Nottingham		M	45-49	Lincolnshire
Dinah Nottingham		F	45-49
Elizabeth Frageon		F	20-24	Lincolnshire
Mary Frageon		F	15-19	Lincolnshire
William Frageon		M	15-19	Lincolnshire
Sargeant Frageon		M	14	Lincolnshire
Edward Frageon		M	10	Lincolnshire
Eliza Frageon		F	7	Lincolnshire
Robert Frageon		M	4	Lincolnshire

Citing this Record

"England and Wales Census, 1841," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQ1R-RFY : 13 December 2017), John Nottingham, Barrow, Lincolnshire, England; from "1841 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO HO 107, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey.

Answer 1

How about this scenario: eldest daughter was married, Frageon, Ferguson or whatever. The rest of her siblings were dittoed on the 1841 census, evidently  to her name instead of her father's, by mistake.

1841 census image, findmypast: https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBC/1841/0627/0259&parentid=GBC/1841/0002539919

Comments

Correct - it seems we all thought of this at the samt time!

---

I did wonder if it was a case of "enumerator error"!

---

It's awesome what this community can do when we put our heads together!

Answer 2

I don't actually think it is "Frageon".  Looks more like a "-son" at the end of the name.

Maybe Dinah was married before, and these are the children from her first marriage?

Comments

Looks like Ferguson to me. Dreadful image.

---

The children are shown with John and Dinah Nottingham as parents in christening records, and (some at least) are known as Nottingham later. I don't have a record of John and Dinah's marriage, or her maiden name.

---

Is it possible that the oldest daughter (Elizabeth) had married a Ferguson and returned to her family home (maybe following the death of her husband), and the census taker messed up and mistakenly gave her last name to all of the other children?

---

Aha! Elisabeth's married name is Farguson (from 1840) so maybe the census taker noted her name and mistakenly applied it to her younger siblings.

Name	Thos. Holmes Farguson
Spouse's Name	Elisabeth Nottingham
Event Date	31 Dec 1840
Event Place	Barrow-Upon-Humber, Lincoln, England
Father's Name	John Farguson
Spouse's Father's Name	John Nottingham

Citing this Record

"England Marriages, 1538–1973 ," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NXQ1-T7Q : 10 December 2014), John Nottingham in entry for Thos. Holmes Farguson and Elisabeth Nottingham, 31 Dec 1840; citing Barrow-Upon-Humber, Lincoln, England, reference 21, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,450,437.

---

Ellen Smith your comment was bang on - I'd just found that same connection!

---

Great to have that answer!

---

Ancestry transcribes it as Fragson

But also remember that no relationships are given on the 1841 census. All the other children are not necessarily John's so need confirming from alternative sources

(one of my direct ancestors  appears on the 1841 census with her aunt and uncle and cousin. Lots of trees make the incorrect assumption that they are all siblings)

Answer 3

A propos of nothing... ;o)

John Sargent Nottingham m Diana Margaret Hunt in Newington St Mary, Surrey Aug 1812, transcribed by West Surrey Family History Society

Comments

Thanks, that would go with a death record for Dinah Margaret Nottingham. Very unusual for any of my family to stray from Lincolnshire/S.Yorks!

---

Could you give me a link to the Surrey data, please, or is it one of theose I have to pay for?

---

I found it on FindMyPast, so I expect you would have to pay.  It was a transcription only - no image - and I have transcribed all the details it contains.

---

If you can see an image of the census could you tell me if there is a birthplace given for Dinah, please? Just to confirm the Surrey marriage. Cheers

---

On the 1841 census, there is no specific birthplace for anybody.  Individuals are merely described as being born in the county or not.

Dinah is described as NOT being born in the county of Lincolnshire.

---

AH, I see thanks! I didn't know that about 1841; I thought they just gave the county of birth. Nearly all my ancestors stayed in the same county that they were born so I hadn't noticed - I'll look out for it now.

---

The column is towards the right-hand side and is merely titled "Born in same county?" and it is a column of Y or N.

Answer 4

Dinah Margaret was buried on 15 October 1849 in Barrow on Humber, age 55 (Lincolnshire Burials (database), transcription by FindMyPast; also National Burial Index) - so estimated birthdate 1794.

Comments

Do those Surrey registers show any parents/siblings for Diana/Dinah Hunt by any chance, please, Ros?

---

Sorry, no. And by the 1841 census she was already married, so no luck there either.